Well I guess those who are spamming it are really doing their jobs now. It is a mess now with all that transactions and that is the reason it keeps on spiking. Miners are going to need to up their game and they would need a lot of fees for that.This is really a chaos now in the bitcoin world.

yeah it kinda is and the fees are going to go up and up if nothing changes, we need the segwit to happen as soon as possible in order to not lose bitcoin users as if the fees keep increasing people will start using fiat instead of bitcoins once again. I hope that the devs will do something to fix it, I mean it is just ridiculous to pay 30k fees when you send 30k satoshi as a transaction isn't it?

There is a solution. Do not send 30k satoshis. Bitcoin is not a micropayment network, there are many alts and side channels for that. No fork will ever change that, because it is impossible to distinguish spam from your transaction. So main network must be protected from spam with high fees, while micro-transactions will happen elsewhere - still backed by the secure bitcoin network, just not written to the blockchain.

Bitcoin won't go mainstream until instant transactions are made possible

Hefty transaction fees are actually only a tip of an iceberg. To facilitate cheap and fast transactions transactional banks (aka hubs) should be established over the blockchain. These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee). Some people will obviously get up in arms at this idea and likely start protesting vigorously against it. I understand their butthurt but I advise them to think twice (before spurting curses and epitaphs), and first time to think how mining (i.e. essentially confirmations of transactions) is already centralized without the possibility of turning back

You are absolutely spot on. The miners are harming the reputation of Bitcoin by demanding too much too early. They fail to understand that we need to increase our user-base, before demanding anything from the users. If the transactions are getting confirmed after 2 days or 3 days, then a lot of users may find another method to transfer their funds.

Okay....I think what we are arguing about here is a bit convoluted. I believe that this argument fits more into the long debated argument of "distribution" vs "decentralization." The bitcoin network is a combination of the two network configurations: the ledger is distributed and the miners are (arguably) decentralized. It's the balance and interrelation of the two configurations that triggers the extreme perceptions here. It seems to be a difference in perspective that drives the divide. The perception of that division can also be attributed to the other long debated argument of "means of exchange" vs "store of value." Can the network support both use cases with the efficiency required to sustain both cases simultaneously? Could one case be sacrificed for the other without causing a disruption in the network? Are they mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive....etc? What is the balance? It's all a matter of perspective, right?

For all practical considerations this division doesn't seem to bear well on reality

These "configurations" as you call them are in fact just one setup (at least, so far). The ledger may be distributed across many millions of nodes but these are irrelevant ultimately since only those copies are binding which are used by miners themselves (and which they change by adding transactions). Really, what's the purpose of a copy of the blockchain (in respect to your point, of course) if you can't do anything with it? In other words, the nodes that are not actively participating in mining can be written off entirely. I guess that wouldn't affect Bitcoin in any substantial degree if they all went offline (though I may be mistaken on this)

Those who run the full node clients help keep the miners honest. They independently validate each block of transactions to make sure the block confirmed by the miner is valid. This allows the nodes to "trust" the block without "trusting" the miner who confirmed it. It is an important "check" on the network to prevent bad actors from manipulating the ledger....Right? Another nuance, maybe: confirmation vs validation?

That's why I made an allowance for likely being mistaken on this point

I've heard something about Bitcoin users who are running full node clients and somehow validating miners' input. Nevertheless, I can't see how they can change anything if they see or think that some miner does something fishy or outright nasty (e.g. includes transactions in the block he's found which shouldn't be there). In short, how exactly can they have a say in this regard? I understand that they might keep the old and allegedly "valid" version of the blockchain without the purportedly offending block, but do they have any real influence or effect?

Translation: Three people have tried explaining it to you and you argue about it every single time.

You seem to get fixated on the word "validate" and assume it means something highly intensive or rigorous like hashing. When we talk about validation, we don't mean it in any particularly elaborate way, just checking it conforms to set rules and follows the longest chain.

Nevertheless, I can't see how they can change anything if they see or think that some miner does something fishy or outright nasty (e.g. includes transactions in the block he's found which shouldn't be there). In short, how exactly can they have a say in this regard? I understand that they might keep the old and allegedly "valid" version of the blockchain without the purportedly offending block, but do they have any real influence or effect?

The Bitcoin software itself does the validating. It's the default behaviour of the software. You don't have to manually configure anything. By running a full node you are both validating and relaying the blockchain. Full nodes won't relay blocks that don't conform to network rules.

If, for example, you were running your own full node, then edited one of the previous blocks to give yourself more bitcoin than you previously had, then tried relaying that version of the blockchain to the network, both miners and full nodes (or the software they're running, to be specific) would refuse to validate or relay that version of the blockchain and you would be forked off the network.

Translation: Three people have tried explaining it to you and you argue about it every single time.

You seem to get fixated on the word "validate" and assume it means something highly intensive or rigorous like hashing. When we talk about validation, we don't mean it in any particularly elaborate way, just checking it conforms to set rules and follows the longest chain.

Nevertheless, I can't see how they can change anything if they see or think that some miner does something fishy or outright nasty (e.g. includes transactions in the block he's found which shouldn't be there). In short, how exactly can they have a say in this regard? I understand that they might keep the old and allegedly "valid" version of the blockchain without the purportedly offending block, but do they have any real influence or effect?

The Bitcoin software itself does the validating. It's the default behaviour of the software. You don't have to manually configure anything. By running a full node you are both validating and relaying the blockchain. Full nodes won't relay blocks that don't conform to network rules.

If, for example, you were running your own full node, then edited one of the previous blocks to give yourself more bitcoin than you previously had, then tried relaying that version of the blockchain to the network, both miners and full nodes (or the software they're running, to be specific) would refuse to validate or relay that version of the blockchain and you would be forked off the network.

I specifically emphasized the word "relay" in your reply

And that's the whole point of what I'm trying to convey. If the full nodes (which are only relaying the blockchain or its changes, i.e. not confirming transactions) consider some block as invalid (for whatever reason), the max what they can do is not to relay the changes. In other words, they themselves cannot invalidate the offending block. Instead they would be just relaying the old version of the blockchain (i.e. without the offending block). Thereby, whoever is taking the blockchain data from them will be thinking that they are just sending them the stale version of the blockchain

If, for example, you were running your own full node, then edited one of the previous blocks to give yourself more bitcoin than you previously had, then tried relaying that version of the blockchain to the network, both miners and full nodes (or the software they're running, to be specific) would refuse to validate or relay that version of the blockchain and you would be forked off the network.

I specifically emphasized the word "relay" in your reply

And that's the whole point of what I'm trying to convey. If the full nodes (which are only relaying the blockchain or its changes, i.e. not confirming transactions) consider some block as invalid (for whatever reason), the max what they can do is not to relay the changes. In other words, they themselves cannot invalidate the offending block. Instead they would be just relaying the old version of the blockchain (i.e. without the offending block). Thereby, whoever is taking the blockchain data from them will be thinking that they are just sending them the stale version of the blockchain

I wouldn't say whoever is taking the blockchain data from them would be thinking... anything at all, really. Unless "whoever" had actually received the invalid blockchain themselves, they would never have known about it to begin with, so in turn, they also wouldn't know if they hadn't received it (I'm sure I could have phrased that better, heh). Basically, the other receiving node won't miss anything it never knew existed. In terms of "stale", the network as a whole doesn't particularly care how frequently it receives updates or how long it takes. As long as it's valid.

If, for example, you were running your own full node, then edited one of the previous blocks to give yourself more bitcoin than you previously had, then tried relaying that version of the blockchain to the network, both miners and full nodes (or the software they're running, to be specific) would refuse to validate or relay that version of the blockchain and you would be forked off the network.

I specifically emphasized the word "relay" in your reply

And that's the whole point of what I'm trying to convey. If the full nodes (which are only relaying the blockchain or its changes, i.e. not confirming transactions) consider some block as invalid (for whatever reason), the max what they can do is not to relay the changes. In other words, they themselves cannot invalidate the offending block. Instead they would be just relaying the old version of the blockchain (i.e. without the offending block). Thereby, whoever is taking the blockchain data from them will be thinking that they are just sending them the stale version of the blockchain

I wouldn't say whoever is taking the blockchain data from them would be thinking... anything at all, really. Unless "whoever" had actually received the invalid blockchain themselves, they would never have known about it to begin with, so in turn, they also wouldn't know if they hadn't received it (I'm sure I could have phrased that better, heh). Basically, the other receiving node won't miss anything it never knew existed. In terms of "stale", the network as a whole doesn't particularly care how frequently it receives updates or how long it takes. As long as it's valid

With that I can't disagree (you certainly might have explained it better)

I read your post a few times (I admit that my head right now is filled with different things), and I couldn't get a clue what you are talking about (but it kinda looks like a tautology to me). In any case, you still didn't address the issue which I raised in my previous post, i.e. full nodes not relaying invalid version of blockchain (as they think or what their software "thinks") would be irrelevant since they are just relaying what they have been relaying before, i.e. the same blockchain without the offending block (as if this block didn't exist at all). In this manner, they don't contribute anything to invalidating the wrongdoing of some rogue miner. As I get it, only other miners can do that (by means of excluding such a block from their version of blockchain when they find a new block)

I don't think this is actually going to affect most of us because if you see PayPal also had more fees from starting and regardless people still use it because of it's features and security of purchases. So same will happen with bitcoin people know the potential of the currency and the anonymity so I don't this fees is actually going to bitcoin much.

Bitcoin won't go mainstream until instant transactions are made possible

Hefty transaction fees are actually only a tip of an iceberg. To facilitate cheap and fast transactions transactional banks (aka hubs) should be established over the blockchain. These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee). Some people will obviously get up in arms at this idea and likely start protesting vigorously against it. I understand their butthurt but I advise them to think twice (before spurting curses and epitaphs), and first time to think how mining (i.e. essentially confirmations of transactions) is already centralized without the possibility of turning back

You are absolutely spot on. The miners are harming the reputation of Bitcoin by demanding too much too early. They fail to understand that we need to increase our user-base, before demanding anything from the users. If the transactions are getting confirmed after 2 days or 3 days, then a lot of users may find another method to transfer their funds.

Okay....I think what we are arguing about here is a bit convoluted. I believe that this argument fits more into the long debated argument of "distribution" vs "decentralization." The bitcoin network is a combination of the two network configurations: the ledger is distributed and the miners are (arguably) decentralized. It's the balance and interrelation of the two configurations that triggers the extreme perceptions here. It seems to be a difference in perspective that drives the divide. The perception of that division can also be attributed to the other long debated argument of "means of exchange" vs "store of value." Can the network support both use cases with the efficiency required to sustain both cases simultaneously? Could one case be sacrificed for the other without causing a disruption in the network? Are they mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive....etc? What is the balance? It's all a matter of perspective, right?

For all practical considerations this division doesn't seem to bear well on reality

These "configurations" as you call them are in fact just one setup (at least, so far). The ledger may be distributed across many millions of nodes but these are irrelevant ultimately since only those copies are binding which are used by miners themselves (and which they change by adding transactions). Really, what's the purpose of a copy of the blockchain (in respect to your point, of course) if you can't do anything with it? In other words, the nodes that are not actively participating in mining can be written off entirely. I guess that wouldn't affect Bitcoin in any substantial degree if they all went offline (though I may be mistaken on this)

Those who run the full node clients help keep the miners honest. They independently validate each block of transactions to make sure the block confirmed by the miner is valid. This allows the nodes to "trust" the block without "trusting" the miner who confirmed it. It is an important "check" on the network to prevent bad actors from manipulating the ledger....Right? Another nuance, maybe: confirmation vs validation?

That's why I made an allowance for likely being mistaken on this point

I've heard something about Bitcoin users who are running full node clients and somehow validating miners' input. Nevertheless, I can't see how they can change anything if they see or think that some miner does something fishy or outright nasty (e.g. includes transactions in the block he's found which shouldn't be there). In short, how exactly can they have a say in this regard? I understand that they might keep the old and allegedly "valid" version of the blockchain without the purportedly offending block, but do they have any real influence or effect?

Simplified explanation: If a rogue miner included a transaction in a block it confirmed and the full node clients found it to be invalid with their independent checks, that block would not be included in the ledger, but when the next transaction block found by a non-rogue miner was independently validated by the full client nodes, that block would be included and added to the ledger, resulting in a longer chain. If, however, there were no full node clients conducting their independent checks, then the bad actor would win.

That's why I made an allowance for likely being mistaken on this point

I've heard something about Bitcoin users who are running full node clients and somehow validating miners' input. Nevertheless, I can't see how they can change anything if they see or think that some miner does something fishy or outright nasty (e.g. includes transactions in the block he's found which shouldn't be there). In short, how exactly can they have a say in this regard? I understand that they might keep the old and allegedly "valid" version of the blockchain without the purportedly offending block, but do they have any real influence or effect?

Simplified explanation: If a rogue miner included a transaction in a block it confirmed and the full node clients found it to be invalid with their independent checks, that block would not be included in the ledger, but when the next transaction block found by a non-rogue miner was independently validated by the full client nodes, that block would be included and added to the ledger, resulting in a longer chain. If, however, there were no full node clients conducting their independent checks, then the bad actor would win.

But how is that ever possible?

I mean how full nodes (which are not mining, obviously) can remove the invalid block from the blockchain? In essence, they can't do anything with the blockchain apart from (not) relaying it further, to whoever might be interested in it. If they see that some newly included block doesn't quite match their "standards", they just refuse to relay it (and relay the old blockchain instead). That's basically all what they can do. It is the miners' prerogative to add new blocks to an old valid version of the blockchain (i.e. without the offending block), thereby completely ignoring the invalid block. What am I missing exactly?

The network is BLOATED and more people want to confirm transactions on the network.The result is spiking transaction fees that might seriously hurt the network and its growth in 2017 if there is nothing done very quickly. If nothing is done and transaction costs keep spiking, a lot of activity will move to cheaper rising networks like DASH. I am not saying it is a bad thing but Bitcoin is NOT well positioned right now at the technical level to benefit from its rise in popularity.

This is good for Blockstream. Now more people will need lightning and will pay Adam Back to let them conduct their transactions on his side chain. This higher the fee, the better it is for Adam to start collecting fees on his private platform. Keep it up. Way up.

Will there not be competing Lighting networks? which will actually make the fee market competitive and drive down price.

That's why I made an allowance for likely being mistaken on this point

I've heard something about Bitcoin users who are running full node clients and somehow validating miners' input. Nevertheless, I can't see how they can change anything if they see or think that some miner does something fishy or outright nasty (e.g. includes transactions in the block he's found which shouldn't be there). In short, how exactly can they have a say in this regard? I understand that they might keep the old and allegedly "valid" version of the blockchain without the purportedly offending block, but do they have any real influence or effect?

Simplified explanation: If a rogue miner included a transaction in a block it confirmed and the full node clients found it to be invalid with their independent checks, that block would not be included in the ledger, but when the next transaction block found by a non-rogue miner was independently validated by the full client nodes, that block would be included and added to the ledger, resulting in a longer chain. If, however, there were no full node clients conducting their independent checks, then the bad actor would win.

But how is that ever possible?

I mean how full nodes (which are not mining, obviously) can remove the invalid block from the blockchain? In essence, they can't do anything with the blockchain apart from (not) relaying it further, to whoever might be interested in it. If they see that some newly included block doesn't quite match their "standards", they just refuse to relay it (and relay the old blockchain instead). That's basically all what they can do. It is the miners' prerogative to add new blocks to an old valid version of the blockchain (i.e. without the offending block), thereby completely ignoring the invalid block. What am I missing exactly?

The network is BLOATED and more people want to confirm transactions on the network.The result is spiking transaction fees that might seriously hurt the network and its growth in 2017 if there is nothing done very quickly. If nothing is done and transaction costs keep spiking, a lot of activity will move to cheaper rising networks like DASH. I am not saying it is a bad thing but Bitcoin is NOT well positioned right now at the technical level to benefit from its rise in popularity.

This is good for Blockstream. Now more people will need lightning and will pay Adam Back to let them conduct their transactions on his side chain. This higher the fee, the better it is for Adam to start collecting fees on his private platform. Keep it up. Way up.

Will there not be competing Lighting networks? which will actually make the fee market competitive and drive down price.

Lightning Network and SegWit at this point look like failed experiment and they won't be accepted. Free market means that Bitcoin transaction fees might be lowered only in case when people would boycott sending coins. Or all users would start to send lowered fees simultaneously, so miners can't chose which transaction push first. Realistically in our current situation fees won't be lowered.

The network is BLOATED and more people want to confirm transactions on the network.The result is spiking transaction fees that might seriously hurt the network and its growth in 2017 if there is nothing done very quickly. If nothing is done and transaction costs keep spiking, a lot of activity will move to cheaper rising networks like DASH. I am not saying it is a bad thing but Bitcoin is NOT well positioned right now at the technical level to benefit from its rise in popularity.

This is good for Blockstream. Now more people will need lightning and will pay Adam Back to let them conduct their transactions on his side chain. This higher the fee, the better it is for Adam to start collecting fees on his private platform. Keep it up. Way up.

Will there not be competing Lighting networks? which will actually make the fee market competitive and drive down price.

Lightning Network and SegWit at this point look like failed experiment and they won't be accepted. Free market means that Bitcoin transaction fees might be lowered only in case when people would boycott sending coins. Or all users would start to send lowered fees simultaneously, so miners can't chose which transaction push first. Realistically in our current situation fees won't be lowered.

I think the current situation can't last forever

I mean the situation where miners are basically dictating the prices for transactions and heavily abusing their power. If the prices are going to continue rising in the future, transacting through blockchain will make even less sense than now, and now we already have to sit on our hands until we can send substantial amounts, i.e. hundreds of dollars in Bitcoin terms per transaction. Even if Lightning Network and SegWit don't get accepted eventually, miners will still have to pay for their selfishness in the end. People will just start using off-chain transactions more through major payment hubs like web wallets, exchanges and exchangers

This is something I can confirm. I've never had serious problems with confirmation time until recently. In the past, I had already had to wait a few hours, but those were rare occasions. Lately I'm having to wait longer, and pay more for it.

Its really weird for me to see people calling a few cents "spiking fees". I very recently sent someone more than a hundred dollars worth bitcoin with only a single dollar fee and it went smoother than ever.

This is not an issue, at least not now. No need to create panic for it.

Use DOGE or LTC and when those blockchains become too large one day as well, just switch to something else.

That way altcoins can come and go, serve their purpose as virtual chump change, while BTC can grow as a store of value and larger payment vehicle.

The block size limitation is a PROTECTION for the blockchain and Bitcoin per se, mind you.

This is not solution, it is a workaround. I don't see how using altcoins will help bitcoin. It will only help that specific altcoin you would be using.Bitcoin is mainly used as store value asset right now but I am afraid that we might reach the point when users draw the wrong conclusion:"So there is no no transactions/very little transactions on the blockchain, that is because bitcoin must be dying! Sell, sell, sell".

think about the exchange fee and the price volatile (even for a couple minutes) ,how much your money will get deducted?i think the current fee still in the normal limit even you used a dynamic fee ,i have no big issue with it until right now , too complicated when you have to convert the whole bitcoin to altcoin first.

Yeah. Even though Bitcoin fees have increased, it is still a lot less than using traditional payment processors like Western Union and MoneyGram. But still, it is something that would need to be solved quickly as the network would slow down, by the transaction load it would have.

We need scalable solutions fast, otherwise Bitcoin would become slower each day, and it would be more expensive for transactions to become confirmed. I hope that the miners, and the rest of the Bitcoin community would make the right decision, for the future of this breakthrough cryptocurrency. Just sharing my thoughts.

think about the exchange fee and the price volatile (even for a couple minutes) ,how much your money will get deducted?i think the current fee still in the normal limit even you used a dynamic fee ,i have no big issue with it until right now , too complicated when you have to convert the whole bitcoin to altcoin first.

Yeah. Even though Bitcoin fees have increased, it is still a lot less than using traditional payment processors like Western Union and MoneyGram. But still, it is something that would need to be solved quickly as the network would slow down, by the transaction load it would have.

We need scalable solutions fast, otherwise Bitcoin would become slower each day, and it would be more expensive for transactions to become confirmed. I hope that the miners, and the rest of the Bitcoin community would make the right decision, for the future of this breakthrough cryptocurrency. Just sharing my thoughts.

You're 100% right. What some people might not realize is that all this was done on purpose. Greg Maxwell openly called for this so that a 'fee market could develop'. Was this a terrible idea based on a corporate agenda? Well, I think so.